Monday, January 21, 2008
Week 2 Barker Chapter 3
The ideas of cultural studies and questioning of which groups are behind the maps of meaning is an interesting question with no easy answer. In reading the chapter, I don't know if I necesarily agree with some of the critics and delineate between the high-low culture by determining what's commercial and part of the culture industry. It seems as if it is an elitist view that essentially says that in a capitalistic society we create culture as a product and the masses find meaning by consuming this product blindly. Now while they're certainly is some truth to that view, especially in Southern California and the US where culture seems to be our number one export, I don't believe that you can define high low culture by figuring out what is commercial and what is non-commercial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"I don't believe that you can define high low culture by figuring out what is commercial and what is non-commercial." Good point, where do you see some of the nuances coming in?
Good question...not sure I have a good answer...but I've struggled with it quite a bit.
Let's just say we were to look at film. There are many different factors that we'd have to take into account in terms of determing what is high culture and what is low culture.
For starters, I don't think we would ever want to label a film high culture or low culture based on the box office performance. By that criteria, The Clover Witch Project, I mean Cloverfield, would be part of high culture. Same thing with television...just because American Idol is # 1 in the ratings does that mean it becomes part of high culture? No way. So, I think that you and I would most likely be in agreement there.
I also have a problem with only evaluating which films are high culture and low culture based on what is distributed in both the multiplex and independent theaters. What about films that don't receive the public distribution in theaters? What about foreign films that don't play here in the West? Sure, you can make the case that The Darjeeling Unlimited belongs in high culture and I'd go with that argument...but it's tied up in something that is really difficult to label...
So, then it still goes back to your question of where do we draw the distinction if we don't draw it at the commercial level?
I think part of the delineation lies in the both the intention of the artist and the reception of the audience. Obviously, we live in a society driven by capitalism. However, if we move past the movies are a business and made to make money argument, we can see that there are obviously some films that are intended and resonate in a deeper and more meaningful way with audiences. To me, it's the depth of meaning that creates the delineation between high and low culture. That's why Darjeeling would more likely fall in the high culture category and Rambo would be relegated to low culture. Even though I'm first in line to see Stallone grunt his way through a new jungle.
"However, if we move past the movies are a business and made to make money argument, we can see that there are obviously some films that are intended and resonate in a deeper and more meaningful way with audiences."
Interesting point. I guess there's a sense in which films that do not have mass appeal, such as Anderson flicks, are more "high culture" but high to who? I mean, sure I like them, but I am not a part of high culture anymore than your average joe. So I do see what you mean by meaning and intention (maybe for Anderson it's not about having a blockbuster but more about telling a good story) and this is one way to add some nuance to the whole enterprise.
I think I struggle with whether there is a "high culture" anymore at all. It seems like capitalism and mass media continue to level the playing field in these ways.
Post a Comment